This paper presents the full debate held on October 1, 2014, which focused on the following resolution: “Publications which promote political agendas have no place in scientific and medical journals, and academics should refrain from publishing in such journals.”
The debate moderator was Professor Shimon Glick. Taking the pro stance was Professor A. Mark Clarfield; the con stance was held by Professor Rael D. Strous. Following the first part of the debate, Dr Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, gave his thoughts on the topic. This was followed by the opportunity for rebuttal by Professors Clarfield and Strous. The debate was summarized and closed by Professor Glick.
This paper provides a slightly edited text of the debate, for ease of reading.
In August of 2014, Manduca P et al. published “An open letter for the people in Gaza” in The Lancet. This letter was the response of those authors to their perspective of what was happening in Gaza during the summer-long conflict between Israel and Gaza. Israel was finally responding to years of bombardment from Gaza into civilian areas in the south of Israel. Two of the authors of the letters were known anti-Semites, and held connections with David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard in Louisiana and advocate of Nazism. Both these authors expressed sympathy and support for Duke’s rabidly anti-Jewish positions. In their letter they accused Israel’s medical community of complicity in committing terrible atrocities and even implied that chemical warfare was being used by Israel.
While the essence of nursing has long been whole person (body, mind, and spirit) and whole system-focused, in reality the contemporary practice of nursing in many settings around the globe has become increasingly fragmented and de-stabilized. Nursing shortages in many parts of the world are significant, and hierarchies and bureaucracies often remove nurses from the point of care, be that the bedside, home, or clinic, replacing them with less skilled workers and filling their time with documentation and other administrative tasks. Integrative nursing is a framework for providing whole person/whole system care that is relationship-based and person-centered and focuses on improving the health and wellbeing of caregivers as well as those they serve. It is aligned with what is being called the “triple aim” in the United States—an effort focused on improving the patient experience (quality and satisfaction), improving the health of populations, and reducing the cost of care. The principles of integrative nursing offer clear and specific guidance that can shape and impact patient care in all clinical settings.
We currently face a myriad of grand global challenges in fields such as poverty, the environment, education, science, and medicine. However, our current means of dealing with such challenges has fallen short, and ingenious solutions are required to overcome the inherent resistance to progress toward ameliorating such difficulties. Here, we highlight the promises and challenges of international collaboration in achieving success toward these trials. We note prior successes in fields such as education, medicine, science, and environmental issues made to date, yet at the same time we do note deficiencies and shortcomings in these efforts. Hence, the notion of international collaboration should be strengthened and encouraged by governments, non-profit organizations, and others moving forward using creative means to bring talented teams together to tackle these challenges across the globe.
The human body hosts rich and diverse microbial communities. Our microbiota affects the normal human physiology, and compositional changes might alter host homeostasis and, therefore, disease risk. The microbial community structure may sometimes occupy discrete configurations and under certain circumstances vary continuously. The ability to characterize accurately the ecology of human-associated microbial communities became possible by advances in deep sequencing and bioinformatics analyses.
The number needed to treat (NNT) is a simple measure of a treatment’s impact, increasingly reported in randomized trials and observational studies. It has been found to be incorrectly calculated in several studies involving varying follow-up times. We discuss the NNT in these contexts and illustrate the concept using several published studies. The computation of the NNT is founded on the cumulative incidence of the outcome. Instead, several published studies use simple proportions that do not account for varying follow-up times, or use incidence rates per person-time. We show how these approaches can lead to erroneous values of the NNT and misleading interpretations. For example, a trial of 3,845 very elderly hypertensives randomized to a diuretic or placebo reported a NNT of 94 treated for 2 years to prevent one stroke, though the correct approach results in a NNT of 63. We also note that meta-analyses involve trials of differing lengths, but often report a single NNT. For example a meta-analysis of 22 trials of the anticholinergic tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reported a NNT of 16 patients “over one year,” even if the trials varied in duration from 3 to 48 months, with the more specifically computed NNTs varying widely from 72, 15, and 250 for the 3-month, 12-month, and 48-month trials, respectively. Finally, we describe the value of the NNT in assessing benefit–risk, such as low-dose aspirin use in secondary prevention, where prevention of mortality was assessed against the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. As the “number needed to treat” becomes increasingly used in the comparative effectiveness and safety of therapies, its accurate estimation and interpretation become crucial to avoid distorting clinical, economic, and public health decisions.
Feelings of guilt have tormented Holocaust survivors, ranging from immediately after the liberation to later in life, for shorter or longer periods, and persisting for some throughout their entire post-war lives. Descriptions of the guilt experienced by survivors of the Nazi camps occupy an impressive amount of literature: “Why me?” was the question, when a younger and more able family member perished; “Why me?” when more productive members of the community perished; “Why me?” when a million and a half children were deprived of their lives. Many found the answer by retelling their stories, witnesses of what happened. This type of guilt is much different from the recently described phenomenon of survivor syndrome, namely the secondary guilt felt by Nazi-persecuted Jewish writers. Despite successes in all aspects of their life, these writers developed a self-incriminating guilt due to their perceived inadequacy of communicating, particularly in light of the resurging anti-Semitism worldwide. This paper deals with the survival and suicides of Nazi-persecuted Jewish writers and offers a possible explanation for their late self-destructive acts.
Introduction. The current study evaluated the rate of ependymal enhancement and whether its presence influences survival of patients with malignant glioma (GBM).
Methods. A retrospective review of all patients who were treated in our institution from 2005 to 2011 was conducted. Data extracted from the medical records included age, date of diagnosis, co-morbidities, treatment regimen, and time of death. Magnetic resonance images (MRI) were evaluated for the presence of ependymal enhancement and its extent, and the correlation to survival was investigated.
Results. Between 2005 and 2011, 230 patients were treated for GBM. Eighty-nine patients were excluded from the study due to insufficient data, leaving 141 patients for analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Sixty-seven (40.6%) patients had evidence of ependymal enhancement on MRI (group A), and 70 (42.4%) patients did not have evidence of enhancement. The assessment of ependymal enhancement was inconclusive due to mass effect and ventricular compression that precluded accurate assessment for 28 (17%) patients (group C). Median survival was 14 months for group A (range, 12–16 months), 15.9 months for group B (range, 14.28–17.65 months), and 11.7 months for group C (range, 6.47–16.92 months) (P>0.05). A multivariate analysis to predict survival indicated that male gender (P=0.039), hypertension (P=0.012), and biopsy only compared to complete gross tumor resection (P=0.001) were significant for poor survival.
Conclusions. Pretreatment ependymal enhancement on MRI was not found to be associated with poorer survival. These results might be due to better treatments options compared to prior reports.
Background: Following the announcement of actress Angelina Jolie’s prophylactic bilateral mastectomies and subsequent prophylactic oophorectomy, there has been a dramatic increase in interest in BRCA testing and prophylactic surgery.
Objective: To review current medical literature on the benefits of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy among BRCA-positive women and its permissibility under Jewish law.
Results: Recent literature suggests that in BRCA-positive women who undergo prophylactic oophorectomy the risk of dying of breast cancer is reduced by 90%, the risk of dying of ovarian cancer is reduced by 95%, and the risk of dying of any cause is reduced by 77%. The risk of breast cancer is further reduced by prophylactic mastectomy. Prophylactic oophorectomy and prophylactic mastectomy pose several challenges within Jewish law that call into question the permissibility of surgery, including mutilation of a healthy organ, termination of fertility, self-wounding, and castration. A growing number of Jewish legal scholars have found grounds to permit prophylactic surgery among BRCA carriers, with some even obligating prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy.
Conclusion: Current data suggest a significant reduction in mortality from prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA carriers. While mutilation of healthy organs is intrinsically forbidden in Jewish law, the ability to preserve human life may contravene and even mandate prophylactic surgery.
